Changes in Subsistence Harvest of Alaska's Western Arctic ......Resume: Nous comparons les niveaux d'exploitation et les . tendances de la chasse de subsistance du troupeau de caribou

Paper 10.

CHANGES IN SUBSISTENCE HARVEST OF ALASKA'S

WESTERN ARCTIC CARIBOU HERD, 1940-1984

by

James L. Davisl, Carl A. Grauvogel 2 , Patrick Valkenburg 1

1 Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 2 Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Fairbanks, Alaska Nome, Alaska

Abstract: We compared the harvest levels and trends of subsistence hunting of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd in northwest Alaska during 3 periods of contrasting caribou abundance and harvest regulations. From 1940-75, caribou were abundant (ca. 250,000), but abundance declined rapidly after 1970; pre-1960 regulations were loosely enforced, effectively a de facto year-round season with no bag limit; post-1959 regulations explicitly allowed year-round, no-limit hunting. From 1976-80, caribou abundance was reduced to 25-50% of the previous level (ca. 75,000-130,000), and regulations permitted a limited harvest of bulls only. By 1981-84, the herd had increased (ca. 145,000-200,000) and harvest regulations were liberalized to approach year-round, no-limit hunting. Estimates of mean annual harvest during the 3 periods discussed were ca. 25,000, ca. 3,000, and ca. 6,000 respectively. Some harvest characteristics (e.g., mean number of caribou harvested/ hunter), from 1 period to the next, showed variation equalling or exceeding the magnitude of change in harvest levels. The observed changes in harvest are discussed in relation to accompanying socio-economic change.

Resume: Nous comparons les niveaux d'exploitation et les tendances de la chasse de subsistance du troupeau de caribou 'Western Arctic', dans le nord-ouest de l'Alaska. L'etude couvre trois periodes ou l'abondance du caribou et les reglements en controlant !'exploitation font contraste. De 1940 a 1975, les caribous abondaient (env. 250 000), mais cette abondance diminua rapidement apres 1970; avant 1960, les reglements n'etaient que vaguement observes, creeant de fait une saison de chasse a l'annee longue, sans limite de capture; apres 1959, les reglements ont permis de fa~on explicite la chasse a l'annee longue, sans limites. De 1976 a 1980, le nombre de caribous tomba a 25-50% des niveaux precedents (soit env. 75 000 - 130 000), et les reglements n'autoriserent qu'une exploitation limitee des taureaux seulement. En 1981-1984, le troupeau s'etait accru suffisamment (env. 145 000 - 200 000) pour que les

106

rc~leme~ts soient relaches, approchant la chasse a l'annee longue et sans limites. Au cours de ces trois periodes, les estimes de !'exploitation moyenne annuelle se situent a environ 25 000, 3000 et 6000, respectivement. D'une periode a !'autre, certaines des caracteristiques de !'exploitation (tel que le nombre moyen de caribous pris, par chasseur) one connu une variation egale ou depassant la magnitude des changements dans le niveau d'exploitation. Les changements observes dans !'exploitation sont discutes en relation aux changements socio-economiques qui les accompagnent.

INTRODUCTION

The levels and patterns of caribou harvest by humans has and will continue to be of interest to wildlife managers and to social scientists. The literature shows that harvest levels and patterns have changed in the past, and we have noted dramatic changes in both harvest levels and harvest patterns of Alaska's Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WACH) since 1975. We discuss these changes and contributing factors. In this paper, we consider all human use of the WACH to be subsistence use.

We acknowledge that the data contained herein on caribou population, harvest, and socio-economic factors are not rigorously quantitative, but we are confident that the trends and orders of magnitude are accurate.

The 3 time periods discussed in the paper, 1940-75, 1976-80, and 1981-84, are arbitrary categories based on intervals in which the relative abundance of caribou, effective hunting regulations, and/or socio-economic conditions were dissimilar to the other periods.

STUDY AREA

Range of the WACH encompasses the northwest quarter of Alaska, approximately 362,600 km 2 , and extends from 65°N to 7l 0 N and from 148°W to 166°30'W (Fig. 1). Vegetation varies from boreal forest in the south to wet coastal tundra in the north. The area is bisected into north and south sections by the western part of the Brooks Mountain Range. The environment has been previously discussed in detail (Spetzman 1959, Lent 1966, Skoog 1968, Hemming 1971).

The distribution of human settlements is depicted in Fig. 1.

METHODS

The Caribou Population

Pre-1975 data ~are obtained from the literature and the unpublished reports and files of the Alaska Department :: Fish and Game (ADF&G). Herd size estimates since 1975 were o~~ained from calving ground count-extrapolation censuses and aerial photo-direct count-extrapolation (APDCE) censuses (Davis and

70"

~ 160" 152"

Pl. Lay,

Cape Lisburne

- - - - ·-···-···· - --· ·-- . ·64"

-

Fig. 1. Distribution of villages, Regional Native Corporations, and Game Management Units in the range of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd.

"''I· i'l

il·il

[,1'1 111

IIIII

'Ill

108

Valkenburg 1978). The ADF&G censused the herd using a refined APDCE procedure (Davis et al. 1979) in 1978, 1980, and 1982. The 1983 and 1984 herd size estimates have been projected from the 1982 photocensus estimate.

Harvest Levels and Trends

Pre-1975 data were obtained from the literature and ADF&G files. During 1975-76, paid village data recorders collected information on harvest in 9 of the 30 villages in the greater range of the WACH (Fig. 1). In 21 other villages, biologists obtained estimates of harvest by personal observation, interviews, and information from village councils. During 1975-76 the commercial use of caribou was estimated by interviewing the known major buyers. Crippling loss and waste can be difficult to distinguish and were lumped together for extrapolations regarding herd population dynamics. From a social view, lumping crippling loss and waste overestimates 'waste.' Crippling loss/waste was evaluated by personal observation, aerial and ground surveys, interviews, pilot reports, complaints from villagers and others, and through public meetings.

To determine harvest in 1976-77, in each village a resident was contracted by ADF&G to issue the village's quota of 3,000 total permits and collect the mandatory harvest reports. We assessed crippling loss/waste incidental to other objectives which included helicopter and fixed-wing surveys and observations from the ground. The assessment was not quantitative but rather subjective relative to 1975-76 and preceding years.

For the 1977-78 through 1979-80 regulatory years, hunting was by registration permits where an unlimited number of permits were available and hunters were required to submit a postcard harvest report. Permits were issued by ADF&G personnel in selected villages or available by mail or in person at the ADF&G offices in Fairbanks, Kotzebue, and Nome. Observations by ADF&G Area Biologists stationed at Barrow, Nome, and Kotzebue augmented total harvest estimates from the harvest report cards.

Mandatory harvest reports of several varieties have been used to record harvest from 1981-84. These also were augmented by qualitative observations of ADF&G field staff.

RESULTS

The Caribou Population

The WACH would have numbered 238,000 in 1950 when censused for the 1st time by aircraft (Scott et al. 1950) if Skoog's (1968) adjustment ratio is incorporated. Lent (1966) censused the WACH between 1959 and 1962 using a method similar to the APDCE technique and concluded that the herd numbered between 175,000 and 200,000. In 1964 Skoog (1968:250) estimated the population to be 300,000 animals. Hemming (1972) next censused the herd in 1970 and estimated the total population in 1970 to be 242,000 caribou. In 1975 Davis and Valkenburg (1978) estimated

~~------'<

109

the herd to number 102,704. In 1976 the herd reached its recent level of 75,000 (Davis and Valkenburg 1978). For 1977 Davis and Valkenburg (1978) calculated estimates of 77,000 to 82,000. Davis et al. (1979) generated a 1978 estimate of ca. 102,000, exclusive of 4,000 in the recently recognized Teshekpuk Herd (Davis 1978, 1980). Extrapolation from a calving ground census in 1979 (Davis et al. 1980) produced a 1979 herd estimate of 113,000+. Modified APDCE censuses in 1980 and 1982 resulted in population estimates of 140,000 and 175,000, respectively (ADF&G files).

Harvest Levels

1940-75:

Few data are available about WACH harvest prior to the late 1950's, although seasons and bag limits were established in 1952. Harvest levels and seasons and bag limits from 1952 through 1984 are summarized in Table 1. For the years prior to 1975-76, the estimated harvest in Table 1 included only the retrieved harvest and not necessarily the sometimes substantial loss to wounding/waste (Davis and Valkenburg 1978, Doerr 1979). An estimated 95% of the annual harvest was taken by rural residents, mostly Native Alaskan subsistence hunters.

We concluded that the 1975-76 total annual harvest equalled or exceeded 25,000 (Davis and Valkenburg 1978; Doerr 1979, 1980). Our surveys during fall 1975 and spring 1976 as well as reports and complaints by village residents and others led us to believe that crippling loss/waste of caribou was substantial and 'Ill

widespread. Therefore, we documented waste by flying aerial surveys and conducting searches from the ground in May and June 1976, after it was n~ longer feasible to retrieve carcasses by snow machine and most carcasses had been scavenged to some degree. The object of these surveys was not to establish the 1"11111'

number of caribou crippled/wasted but to show that crippling/waste was unacceptably high and widespread. More than 1,000 crippling loss/wasted carcasses were counted in the areas surveyed, and the total number in the herd's entire range was probably several times larger (Davis and Valkenburg 1978, Doerr 1979).

1976-84:

Seasons, bag limits, and harvest from 1976 through 1984 are summarized in Table 1. Harvest ranged from an estimated low of 2,700-3,500 in 1976-77 t~ 5,000-12,000 in 1983-84. 5sp 2 Patterns of Caribou Harvest

1940-75:

Few detailed accounts of harvest of the WACH by individuals and villages are available for the 1940-75 period. Available information shows that major variation is normal for a host of reasons such as availability of caribou, alternate subsistence resources such as fish, birds, and sea mammals--and even cash. Saario and Kessel (1966) and Foote and Williamson (1966) obtained

---~_1

Table 1. Estimated human harvest of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, hunting seasons, and bag limits, 1952-1984.a

Regulatory Bag limit Approximate harvest year Season (no. caribou) reported estimated

1984-85 1 Jul-30 Apr

1983-84 1 Ju1-30 Apr

1982-83 1 Jul-30 Apr

1981-82 1 Jul-31 Mar

19B0-81

1979-80

~10 Aug-15 Oct for different areas:

1 Dec-15 Apr 15 Feb-15 Apr

10 Aug-15 Oct 15 Feb-15 Apr

1978-79 10 Aug-15 oct 15 Feb-15 Apr

1977-78 1 Sep-5 Oct 15 Mar-15 Apr

1976-77 25 Sep-31 Mar

1975-76

1974-75

No

No

closed

closed

season

season

' I 5/day; only 5 can be n.a. n.a. transported south of the Yukon River (no bag limit)

5; more may be taken 1,249 5,000-12,000 by registration permit (no bag limit)

5; more may be taken 1,509 n.a. by registration permit (no bag limit)

4; female caribou may be 906 more than 3,000 taken 15 Sep-15 Apr and 2 caribou may be transported from Game Management Units (no total seasonal quota)

3 bulls 458 3,000 (no total seasonal quota)

3 bulls by registration 852 3,000 permit. Only 1 may be taken from 10 Aug-15 Oct (5,000 bulls = season quota)

2 bulls by registration 1,151 3,600 permit. Only 1 may be taken from 10 Aug-15 Oct (5,000 bulls = season quota)

1 bull by registration 672 3,000 permit (3,000 bulls = season quota)

Bull caribou by permit 1,100 2,700-3,500 only. 1 caribou per permit. 3,000 permits allocated by local governing bodies.

No limit more than 25,000

No limit less than 25,000

Table 1. Continued.

Regulatory Bag limit Approximate harvest year Season (no. caribou) reported estimated

1973-74 No closed season No limit more than 25,000



1970-71 No closed season No limit 25,000

1969-70 No closed season No limit less than 25,000


1967-68 No colosed season No limit 26,000


1965-66 No closed season No limit 29,000 111.11

1964-65 No closed season No limit 25,000 ill:~

1963-64 No closed season No limit 20,000 I'' 1:1'!

1962 to No closed seasonb n.a. I

1959 ]Ill

1958 20 Aug-31 Decb 3 caribou either 'sex n.a.

1957 No closed seasonb No limit n.a.

1956 20 Aug-28 Febb No limit n.a.

1955 20 Aug-28 Febb 5 caribou either sex, no calves n.a.



1952 20 Aug-28 Febb 3 caribou bulls only, forked horn n.a. or larger

a References for all harvest data prior to 1979-80 are cited in Davis and Valkenburg (1978); all harvest data after 1979-80 are from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Annual Survey and Inventory Reports, Juneau. All details of seasons and bag limits not included (e.g., in some years emergency regulations modified or superseded.existing regulations such as in 1976-77

band 1977-78). North of the Arctic Circle.

J

112

estimates of some harvest patterns from Kivalina, Noatak, and Pt. Hope from 1959 to 1961. Gubser (1965) offered the following summary about the harvest at Anaktuvuk Pass:

'Among the Nunamiut at Anaktuvuk Pass in 1960, there were 32 hunters who provided for 96 mouths (including their own) and about 200 dogs. Of the 32, only 20 were the major hunters of their households. As well as I could determine from questioning hunters and spending a year among these Eskimos, in a normal year the hunters account for about 1,000 caribou of all ages and both sexes. Seven or eight of the best hunters account for between 70 and 100 caribou apiece, while the remaining 24 hunters shoot between 5 and 70 caribou apiece.'

Our 1975-76 harvest data constitute the most comprehensive data set we are aware of pertaining to harvest in a specific year throughout the range of the WACH. This data set is the only one available from the 1970-76 period. For these reasons, the data are of value not only to wildlife managers, but to anthropologists and other social scientists. The data are available by village (Davis and Valkenburg 1978) but are summarized by Game Management Unit (GMU) only in this paper.

Total retrieved harvest for GMU 23 was estimated to be in excess of 13,540-17,540. The mean number of caribou harvested per successful hunter (±SD) in GMU 23 villages is summarized in Fig. 2.

The total harvest estimate for GMU 24 was 1,000. The mean number of caribou harvested per successful hunter (±SD) from Anaktuvuk Pass is summarized in Fig. 2.

The ADF&G estimated that 2,700-2,950 caribou were taken prior to February 1976 in GMU 26. No less than 1,000 additional animals were taken after January in the Unit, making a total of 3,700-3,950 for the year. However, the Barrow harvest estimate may have been a gross underestimate as J. Doerr (pers. commun.) estimated that the harvest at Barrow must have been much larger than at Noorvik or Kotzebue in GMU 23. His estJmates were based on the human population size and the amount of dead caribou he found in meat cellars and sheds in the respective villages while collecting jaws in late winter 1976. It is probable that the Barrow harvest totaled 4,000 or more.

No rigorous accounting of harvest for GMU's 21 and 22 was accomplished, but residents of Unit 22 were estimated to have taken 500 caribou between January and April. The harvest of WACH caribou by residents of GMU 21 was not well documented but likely numbered several hundred.

Hunters residing outside the range of the WACH likely harvested 200-400 caribou in 1975-76. Most harvest occurred along the middle portion of the Noatak River during September and on the Kanuti Flats near Bettles.

--rli

a: w 1z ~ 40 ...J :J u.. en en w g 30 :J en a: w a.. 0 w 20 1en w >a: <( J: :J 100 cc a: <( (.)

u.. 0 0 a: w cc :E :J z

113

(40) (32) (51)

(42) I !Mean ! s.d.T T I I (55)

(35)

(16)

ca c ca >

::::.:::

(23)

~

'- ~ ca Q) c >ca ~ Ill,"0 c 0.Q - ca

(255)•"0 Q) c .Q

E "II

0 1'111

! (.)(22) tJ)

,I'L'Q) 0 ca

~ c ~ ca c ~tl)-~ > ~ E 0 ::J ::Jtl) <(

~ ::::.:::'- ca <( z .c -ca !11 0 ~a.. ~ en0 Q)0 ca::J enz ccc <(

VILLAGES

Fig. 2. Mean+ s.d. number of caribou taken per successful hunter from villages in Game Management Unit 23 and Anaktuvuk Pass; (n) = number of successful hunters reporting.

114

1976-80:

Harvest characteristics during this period can be considered artifacts of the restrictive regulations in force during this period. For the first time since about 1960 there were regulations restricting the hunting season and bag limit. The mean number of caribou taken and the maximum number taken were obviously influenced by regulatory restrictions (assuming general compliance).

1981-84:

Though seasons and bag limits have been liberalized since 1980 to approach the pre-1975 situation of no closed season and no bag limit, the apparent pre-1975 harvest levels and characteristics have not returned. Harvest level appears less than 50% of earlier harvest levels, at most, in spite of an increased human population. Also, harvest characteristics such as mean and maximum number of caribou per hunter have remained much lower, based on harvest reports. For example, in 1982-83 the mean number of caribou harvested per successful hunter reporting was 3, compared to 20 in 1975-76.

Commercial Use of Caribou

Although commercial use of caribou was legal between 1963 and 1976, there was little documentation of the use. We estimated that about 150 caribou were sold to the Lab betwen May 1974 and September 1975. It is unlikely that commercial harvest of the WACH exceeded 1,000 caribou per year.

Socio-Economic Change

Clearly, major socio-economic change has occurred in recent decades among the human inhabitants of the WACH's range. Human population has more than doubled since 1950. The average number of years of education among North Slope Eskimos more than doubled from 1960 to 1977 (Kruse et al. 1961). The mean financial status of residents of the WACH range has progressively increased since the 1940's. For example, on the North Slope area between 1960 and 1977 the median family income increased 261% (in constant 1960 dollars) from $3,438 to $8,982 (Kruse et al. 1981). It follows and evidence suggests that the availability of modern technology and its employment in subsistence harvesting (Kruse et al. 1981, Burch 1984) of the WACH has paralleled the increased incomes and should allow more efficient (i.e., greater) harvesting of caribou.

DISCUSSION

The widespread use of dogs for transportation ended in the late 1960's, which led most biologists and social scientists to predict that caribou harvest would decline because caribou would not be needed for dog food. But harvest of caribou continued at high levels until restrictions were imposed after 1975. Caribou

115

harvest characteristics and levels from 1976-80 were largely dictated by restrictive regulations and decreased availability of caribou to many villages. Seasons and bag limits were progressively liberalized from 1979-84 concurrent with continuing growth of the WACH. Despite this, the harvest is less than 50% as large as before, and it seems that social and economic changes are at least partly responsible.

Social change (e.g., increased human population) and economic change (e.g., increased buying power for advanced technology) suggest that the demand and ability to harvest caribou should be greater post-1980 than pre-1975. Therefore, could it be that harvest has not increased because caribou have been adversely distributed to allow greater harvest? Based on the WACH's movements and distribution (unpublished data, ADF&G) after 1980, we conclude that caribou availability for harvest cannot solely account for the reduced harvest level.

So, what evidence exists that socio-economic factors could reduce the caribou harvest? Kruse (1982) interviewed 282 individuals in 6 North Slope villages to determine what effect 1977 caribou harvest regulations had. The results were that 53% of the people bought more meat, 15% ate less meat, 8% substituted other fish/game, 7% bought more/ate less, 5% substituted/bought more, 1% substituted/ate less, and 11% were not affected. It appears there was an economic option to buy more in time of need. That condition has surely continued or improved since 1977. Kruse's (1982) interviews also showed 10% of Eskimo adults believed they got less fish and game because they worked more in 1977 than they had in 1970.

We believe the following social factor may largely account for the current relatively low harvest level. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, biologists believed the WACH was so large that it could cause long-term habitat damage through forage overuse and fostered a setting where the human populace was encouraged to take a large harvest without emphasis on most efficient use. Subsequently, the herd declined dramatically in the mid-1970's and the general theme for human use of the WACH became very conservative and conscientious use of the caribou. We suggest that 'time lag' and continuing conservative hunting attitudes among many hunters persist today.

CONCLUSION

Despite liberalized hunting seasons and bag limits post-1980, subsistence harvest of the WACH has not returned to pre-1975 levels, but rather is about 50% lower. The reasons for this major difference are undoubtedly complex and are not easily identifiable, but we believe the following factors have contributed: (1) a dramatic reduction in dog teams reduced demand for caribou meat because there was no need to feed caribou to the dogs; (2) increases in transportation facilities and in real buying power lead to a higher consumption of non-Native store-bought foods (3) increased employment reduced-leisure time available for hunt ng; (4) access to television, other recreational activ ties (e.g., gymnasiums), and increased

""I'.II ill•

,,,:,,J

116

educational alternatives competed with hunting opportunities; and {5) a campaign by the State of Alaska and Native leaders to harvest only the number of caribou needed for human consumption resulted in a reduction in 'stockpiling' practices and better compliance with hunting regulations. Conservative hunting attitudes among some hunters still persist today, in part because of a higher profile and increased ADF&G presence in the villages.

We do not imply that the harvest of the WACH will necessarily remain at or below the present level. On the contrary, given the continuing increases in Native and non-Native population, increased access and improvement of technology and equipment, continued interest and emphasis by Natives and others to maintain and enhance the subsistence lifestyle, and the dominating importance caribou have played in the lives of subsistence hunters over the years, we believe that harvest will escalate.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank the many residents of northwest Alaska who cooperated in this study by reporting their harvests and especially those villagers who worked as data collectors. We particularly thank J. Doerr for his many contributions while conducting a graduate study. We thank Department biologists D.A. Anderson, J.W. Coady, D.D. James, D.A. Johnson, H.R. Melchior, and H.V. Reynolds for their aid in harvest determinations and censusing the WACH. T.T. Shideler and M. Sigman aided in various f~cets of the project. S. Pederson was helpful with source material and he and R. Stern offered helpful suggestions.

REFERENCES

Burch, E.S., Jr., 1984. The modern Eskimo hunters of Kivalina, Alaska. Final Report on Field Research, 1982-84 to Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau. 20 pp.

Davis, J.L., 1978. History and current status of Alaska caribou herds. Pp. 1-8 in D.R. Klein and R.G. White (eds.) Parameters of caribou populations in Alaska. Proc. Symp. and Workshop. Biol. Pap. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, Spec. Rep. No. 3.

--------, 1980. Status of Rangifer in the USA. Pp. 793-797 in E. Reimers, E. Gaare, and s. Skjenneberg, (eds.) Proc. 2nd Int. Reindeer/Caribou Symp., R6ros, Norway, 1979. Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim.

--------, and P. Valkenburg. 1978. Western Arctic caribou studies. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-17-8 and W-17-9. Juneau.

--------, P. Valkenburg, and S.J. Harbo, Jr. 1979. Refinement of the aerial photo-direct count-extrapolation caribou census technique. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid

117

Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-17-11. Juneau. 23 pp.

--------, P. Valkenburg, and H.V. Reynolds. 1980. Population dynamics of Alaska's Western Arctic Caribou Herd. Pp. 595-604 in E. Reimers, E. Gaare, and s. Skjenneberg, (eds.) Proc. 2na-Int. Reindeer/Caribou Symp., R~ros, Norway, 1979. Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim.

Doerr, J., 1979. Population analysis and modeling of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd with comparisons to other Alaska Rangifer populations. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks.

Doerr, J.G., 1980. Modeling the population decline of two Alaskan caribou herds. Pp. 611-623 in E. Reimers, E. Gaare, and s. Skjenneberg, eds. Proc:- 2nd Int. Reindeer/Caribou Symp., R¢ros, Norway, 1979. Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk, Trondheim.

Foote, D.C., and H.A. Williamson, 1966. A human geographic study. Pp. 1041-1108 in N.J. Wilimovsky and J.N. Wolfe, (eds.) Environment of the Cape Thompson Regin, Alaska. USAEC. Oak Ridge, Tenn. 1250 pp.

Gubser N.J., 1965. The Nunamiut Eskimos: hunters of caribou. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn. 384 pp. ",Ill

i11:1i

Hemming, J., 1971. The distribution and movement patterns of caribou in Alaska. Wildl. Tech. Bull. 1. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game. Juneau. 60 pp. !lili

--------, 1972. Western Arctic Herd census. in R.E. Pegau and J. Hemming, (eds.) Caribou Report. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Proj. Rep~ W-17-2. Juneau.

Kruse, J.A., 1982. Subsistence and the North Slope Inupiat: the effects of energy development. Man in the Arctic Program. !1;1

Monogr. No, 4. inst. of Social and Economic Research, Univ. Alaska, Anchorage. 45 pp.

--------, J. Kleinfeld, and R. Travis, 1981. Energy development and the North Slope Inupiat: quantitative analysis of social and economic change. Man in the Arctic Program. Monogr. No. 1, ISEGR, Univ. Alaska, Anchorage. 105 pp.

Lent, P.C. 1966, The caribou of northwestern Alaska. Pp. 481-517 in N.J. Wilimovsky and J.N. Wolfe, (eds.) Environment of the Cape Thompson Region, Alaska. USAEC. Oak Ridge, Tenn. 1250 pp.

Saario, D.J., and B. Kessel, 1966. Human ecological investigations at Kivalina. Pg. 969-1040 in N.J. Wilimovsky and Jn.N. Wolfe, (eds.) Environment of the-cape Thompsonn Region, Alaska. USAEC. Oak Ridge, Tenn. 135 pp.

Scott R.F., E.F. Chatelain, and W.P. Elkins, 1950. The status of the Dall sheep and caribou i Alaska. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. 15:612-626 •

...

II

118

Skoog, R.O., 1968. Ecology of the caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in Alaska. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Calif., Berkeley. 699 pp.

Spetzman, L.A., 1959. Vegetation of the Arctic Slope of Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Pap. No. 302-B.

McGILL UNIVERSITY McGill Subarctic Research Station

CARIBOU MANAGEMENT

• CENSUS

TECHNIQUES

• STATUS

IN EASTERN CANADA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND NORTH AMERICAN CARIBOU WORKSHOP, VAL MORIN, QUEBEC

17-20 October 1984

Edited by: THOMAS C. MEREDITH ARTHUR M. MARTELL

Series Editor: T.R. MOORE

McGill Subarctic Research Paper No. 40 Centre for Northern Studies and Research

McGill University

1985

Documents

Changes in Subsistence Harvest of Alaska's Western Arctic ......Resume: Nous comparons les niveaux d'exploitation et les . tendances de la chasse de subsistance du troupeau de caribou